and its low quality as a football analysis tool, how f*cking bad must Syracuse be?
FC: With all due respect to the transitive property,
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
And the toughest in conference game Clemson will have to play. Must be great to have a free pass to the playoffs, no? Even if they lost 1 of their OOC games.
I didn't notice this until now but UB beat Temple (who beat MD) 38-22. UB also lost to Liberty 35-17. Syracuse beat Liberty 24-0.
Funny game.
8 teams has nothing to do with Clemson getting a free pass to the playoffs. I am not disputing the difficulty of the ACC but suggesting even remotely that Clemson shouldn't be there is silly.
Based on the last 10 years had we had 8 teams would simply move the "teams with a chance" down the scale.
1. Clemson
2 Bama
3 Oklahoma
4 tOSU
5 SEC runner up
Those 5 are almost locks. That leaves the following candidates for the remaining 3 spots.
. Big 10 runner up or champion if it isn't tOSU, PAC 12 champ, ND, SEC 3rd place, Group of 5 champ, and as outside longshots the ACC runner up if FSU returns to glory or the Big 12 RU if Texas comes back.
In any case would any of the 5-8 teams have stood a chance? Not much IMO. All expanding to 8 does is add 4 more play off games and make all the bowl games even less meaningful. IMO the National Championship finals would have been the same regardless
It's not a playoff. It's still a bowl game invitational tournament dubbed as a playoff.
There is ZERO set criteria for getting in.
It doesn't matter if Alabama and Clemson are the two best teams, the path to getting there needs to be clear and equal for every team playing.
IMO the National Championship finals would have been the same regardless[/QUOTE]
This thinking is the problem. If the best teams on paper always won, PSU never would have won the '86 championship. And how many Super Bowl champs would never have been given the chance to actually win it on the field because it goes against the experts concensus opinion? Does anyone keep track how often the "experts" are wrong in big games?
This thinking is the problem. If the best teams on paper always won, PSU never would have won the '86 championship. And how many Super Bowl champs would never have been given the chance to actually win it on the field because it goes against the experts concensus opinion? Does anyone keep track how often the "experts" are wrong in big games?
You deserve a like just for that one!
Tis true - AFC East ~ ACC Atlantic. Helps that FSU, Syracuse, and Louisville are all 2-2, and the only undefeated and ranked teams in the division are Clemson and...wait for it...Wake Forest!
Correct. Which is why you give the P5 champions an auto berth and then pick the three best at large teams. Clearest path with current conference affiliations.
And who is to say Clemson would t trip if they had back to back competitive games. For crying out loud, even Alabama has a “wise” schedule. Before every tough game, they either have a bye or a cake walk. There is no Michigan/Ohio St back to back weeks like we have had the past years.
Ridiculous.
You deserve a like just for that one!
Tis true - AFC East ~ ACC Atlantic. Helps that FSU, Syracuse, and Louisville are all 2-2, and the only undefeated and ranked teams in the division are Clemson and...wait for it...Wake Forest!
Here is the disgusting part - is the Orange Bowl not obligated to take the best ACC rep if Clemson goes to Playoff, meaning Virginia would go in? I may have that incorrect.
The Orange Bowl is required to take another ACC team if the conference champion is in the playoffs.That's what the Bowl promoters signed up for. Don't know why it's "disgusting."
I don't get the Clemson hate from some on this board. So Clemson should be penalized because the rest of the ACC is weak? That's on Miami and FSU to get their S**T together. Ten years ago nobody gave Clemson a second thought and now that they have won a couple of titles all of the sudden they are getting a "free" pass to the title game. I'm pretty sure a lot of teams aren't trying real hard to schedule Clemson nowadays.
Can you please expand on that? I remember maybe 50 years in which bowl games had little or no "meaning" other than winning a game against a select opponent. That won't change in a negative way. Are you saying that some Bowl games will be diminished if the winner goes on to play afterward. I don't see that. I can foresee that some bowls might be less attended as some fan bases eschew a game in anticipation of attending a later game but, especially lately, TV revenue has trumped attendance and broadcasts have been pretty good at hiding sparsely attended games. Maybe you can clarify your point. TIA
Which is what the Orange Bowl Committee signed up for and you don't get a vote, fvckwad.
Those schedules are made years in advance. No way to know how good it bad the teams will be when they play.
I only dislike Clemson because once upon a time, I watched them erase a 28-0 halftime deficit and beat UVA 29-28. And the DT Wilkins.
You play who you play. They have only lost a handful of games in the past 4 seasons. Winning is all you control.
Similar threads
